Thoughts on a Post-modern Testimony

The power of the personal testimony is valued in all ways and in all places by Evangelicalism and fundamentalism. How we answer the question “What has God done for you?” is a shillobeth for membership in either of these circles. Dramatic stories told in high school youth groups, recovery ministries, and missionary pulpits are ever flowing and ever dramatic. Good Christians, like family, are always ready to open their ears to them and give people a place to speak, share, and be understood.

At least as long as the speakers tow the party line.

It is no defective fault that Evangelicalism desires to listen to Evangelicalism. That is to say: there is nothing wrong with the fact that evangelicals are eager to hear about how other people have come to experience God through evangelicalism. Yet, I think Christian charity calls us to more than that. Can evangelicals truly listen and understand those who depart from evangelicalism for some “other” Christianity?

One such testimony comes from the Emergent Podcast. Here, the speaker A.J. stitch confesses that Emergent is the only way that he can remain a Christian after leaving a conservative, charismatic, Christian college at Asbury. This phenomen is far more common than many people realize (or admit).

For the record, I do not consider myself a member of or an advocate of the Emergent Village, but neither do I count myself as one of their detractors. What I hope though, is that everyone reading this blog will listen to this blog and give the speaker as fair of shake as they give anyone else giving an evangelical testimony. After that, here are some questions that I would love to hear you all answer on this blog.*

Questions to Ponder

Cultural and Philosophical Challenges

The story begins with a reading of “Life of Pi” and “Under the Banner of Heaven.” Both of these books provided a cultural and philosophical challenge to Christianity he was raised in. Does evangelicalism adequately understand how weird the crucifixion look to outsiders? How does one answer the apparent contradiction of God condemning Murder and then later calling for it?

Josh Harris and “Christian Courtship.”

The author described himself as “all out evangelist” for Josh Harris/Christian courtship, but later he said that this failed to address the issues of depression. How might “Christian Courtship” overcome this problem? If it is unable to, what must be done with it?

Experience versus Scripture

The speaker, at one point, mention that reading in the Bible “God will not tempt you with more than you can bear” did not quite fit with his experience and observations during a depressive period of his life. He also criticizes his own literalistic, modernist, interpretation of scripture. What was wrong in this situation? The Bible? His interpretation of it? Or his understanding of experience?

*For my Facebook friends, I’m glad you’re reading this here. There will be a lot of room for a great discussion if everyone consolidates their comments in the blog itself. If you like what’s said here, please go ahead and repost it or email it.

Atheists and their Fathers: Who really needs Sky Daddy?

There is a common complaint, that is at least a hundred years old, the Christians like myself believe in Sky Daddy. Specifically, the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and –above all- all-loving God is a projection of childish desires for protection from the scary world. “God” is just an exalted projection of an earthly father. While there is some truth to this, I think it is an argument that can just as well easily be leveled against an atheism. Paul Vitz, a psychologist, summed it up in his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.

Now, there is some qualified truth to the Sky Daddy idea. I think that many Christians use God as a security blanket even into adulthood. There is a tendency to dump every decision in life to what God is telling you. Thing is, there comes a point when God wants you to do things on your own a bit. But this does not mean that this is all Christianity and theism are motivated by.

Many atheists assert that people’s belief in God is a subconscious result of their good fathers. Why not instead assert that people subconsciously reject God because of their lousy, abusive, or absent fathers? This is called “the defective father” hypothesis. Vitz, in his book, lists many famous atheists from history –such as Sartre, Voltaire, and Netizche and shows that all of these men had either dead fathers, weak fathers, or abusive fathers. For instance, H.G. Wells’ father spent time playing cricket, drinking, and gambling instead of looking after his family’s businesses.

In contrast, Christians like Pascal, Wilberforce, and G.K. Chesterton, all had positive fathers or surrogate fathers. Pascal was “home-schooled” and accompanied his father to the philosophical lectures of his day. Wilberforce’s father died at a young age, but was looked after by his uncle, who introduced his nephew to Methodism.

Now, there is of course not a “proof” of God here anymore than there is a “proof” against God in the Sky Daddy case. It does however show a connection between our fathers and our beliefs about God. More importantly, it shows that atheism can be just as ‘pathological’ as they sometimes claim theists are.

So maybe next time you talk to an atheist, who thinks he has the finest intellectual reasons to reject Christianity, you should forget about your personal testimony or apologetics or whatever. Instead, just ask, “So how’s your relationship with your Dad?”